Anything goes

If I may interject some thoughts here ...

I agree with what both WalkerJ and Jules have been arguing. Yet, there still seems to be an almost necessary arbitrariness about (most) morals. For an example, I would imagine most people here would agree that abusing children is immoral. However, I am not entirely certain we would all agree upon the definition of a "child". That is, at what age does one become an adult? And, isn't that age, whatever we choose, an arbitrary distinction? The distinction may be "maturity", but isn't that not only subjective but different from person-to-person? I know I have met some 17-year old "children" who we more mature than 19-year old "adults".

Also, there has been some discussion over the "progression of civilization". I am hesitant to use words like "progress", not because I don't think we are achieving a certain degree of it with each passing year, but because we tend to use the word far too liberally. For an example, would a society be "progressing" if they increased the age of consent from 18 to 21? If so, why? There are advanced societies in Europe today that have it at 16 (and even younger). I would argue that these same societies are more advanced, in many respects, than the one in the US (but not because of the age of consent; for many other reasons. e.g. universal health-care, free education all the way through university, etc).

I would argue that before we can debate on the arbitrary nature of morals, we must first define things like "child" and "adult" and "ability to consent", etc. If these are chosen arbitrarily, does that make the morals they are trying to uphold (e.g. preventing the abuse of children) also arbitrary?

PS: Does anyone have some good books on morals they would like to recommend. Let me preface this request by saying that I am not interested in any religious books. Been there, done that.

Re: Life, the Universe and Everything

Jules wrote:

For an example, child labour is, based on everything I know, both immoral and exploitative.

Well, I guess that is why if "children shall not work for money" was a moral, it could be a bit too definite and prove useless in many situations. When coming up with wording for these "morals" I think they need to envelop the idea of the behavior they are pertaining to.

I guess I am trying to say that it is not wise to get too specific when dealing with defining morals.

Jules wrote:

In the book Freakonomics economist Steven Levitt makes a rather convincing case for the correlation between the drop in crime rate in major US cities and time period when legalized abortion occurred in this cities. Moral actions bring about good results (betterment in our societies) which is what makes them moral. To requote your biblical reference: â€œBy their fruits ye shall know themâ€

In some cultures it is highly "moral" to have their young daughters married. To others it is highly offensive, and immoral.

Mohammed married a six year old and later consummated the marriage when she was nine years old.

Shia Moslems believe in "Muta" marriage (Marriage of Desire), which is basically, temporary marriage for the sake of sex. This is disdained in Sunni Islam.

In Sunni Culture this is viewed as prostitution, as cash does exchange hands, and immoral, the Shias, however, see this as not only "moral" but commanded of God!

So who is correct? Are we to accept Mohammed's marriage to a six year old as a "godly" act to be emulated, or not? Berg's sexual practices are similar, just as were the practices of the early Mormons.

Definitions
To Thorwald: Frankly I donâ€™t think the US is currently the best role model for a progressive society, although historically it has done much to contribute to the evolution of societal values. In Canada, where I live, the age of consent is actually 14. Canada, although having a low age of consent, has a number of provisions prohibiting exploitative behaviour and actually has some of the most comprehensive child protection laws in the world. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html

I think to define child, adult, ability to consent, etc. one has to understand the reasoning behind protecting children in the first place. Medical studies have clearly established that physical, emotional and sexual violence, exploitation and neglect of children shapes the way they develop and results in physical, neurological and psychological damage. Child Abuse would therefore be actions that impair a childâ€™s development, and protecting children from abuse ensures the best possible chance for all members of society to develop their full potential. With that as a definition, issues like the age of consent, trying children as adults, age of military enlistment, spanking laws, etc. become less arbitrary, although I agree that laws addressing these issues sometimes do, out of necessity, make subjective definitions.

This goes back to some of my questions: Were people in past centuries fundamentally evil because of their mistreatment of children or did they act based on information that they had at the time. Is it more moral to adhere to a code of conduct that one believes to be absolute, or to remain open to information and knowledge and adjust our values accordingly? If morality is unchanging and especially, if it is divinely dictated, then why do most followers of religions today pick and choose what they follow from their holy books and religious teachers of the past?

To Evanman: This is precisely my point about â€œgodly valuesâ€

Jules wrote:

To Thorwald: Frankly I donâ€™t think the US is currently the best role model for a progressive society, although historically it has done much to contribute to the evolution of societal values.

Actually, that was exactly my point as well. I believe the US is one of the least "progressive" societies in the Western World. It is interesting that many philosophers and historians also point out that the Roman Empire (the sole superpower of its day) was one of the least progressive societies of its time (for those that were "civilised").

So perhaps some cultures/religions/etc double speak the word "moral." We simply cannot accept something as a "moral" because someone puts that label on it. Can we?

Evanman, I thought you said that there must be some judge like "God" to decide what is moral and what is not. Well, from your Muslim examples, I think you have shown yourself how that might turn out.

Every man must judge himself. You are your own judge and you will pay for your sins.

Evolutionary Psychology
JW worte:

Quote:

I believe that, theoretically, there could be such a thing as universal constant--or force, if you will--of right and wrong.

Then Jules Wrote:

Quote:

Well, JW, may the force be with you. Wink Where we differ, as I see it, is that I don't think there is a "universal constant" for good and evil. That's it.

What I was arguing for in my somewhat arcane discussion on evolutionary theory and morality is that species survival through natural selection could be considered a universal contant. There does appear to be a "force" in the universe that gives rise to life. Whether that "life force" is entirely random and unique to serendipitous conditions on this planet or a matter of intelligent & conscious design is an entirely different debate.

I don't subscribe to the notion that humans will ultimately destroy all life on earth through something like a nuclear winter. We know, for example, that cockroaches are likely to survive to become the dominant species should a nuclear winter occur. It's more probable that natural evolutionary processes (e.g., meteor impacts & climate change) will destroy the human species as it currently exists than that we will destroy ourselves.

Morality has contributed to our success as a species because works against our self-destruction and/or total annihilation as a species. It is an adaptive social mechanism that helps to ensure our continued success as the dominant species. "Good" morals are those social constraints that optimize survival in the global/planetary environement over very, very long periods of time. "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral contraint that only goes back a few thousand years in the evolution of our brains. We have a long way to go with adapting behaviorally to this moral constraint so as to optimize it as a survival strategy. Maybe we never will. It's the process that appears to be a universal contant, and not a specific set of outcomes.

Re: Evolutionary Psychology
Does anyone see the effects of "morals" in their personal lives? Or is it just a matter of the evolution of the species?

Islamic morals are humanistic, they are the invention of Mohamed and later Islamic theologians. We know from Mohamed's own example that "Right" and "Wrong" are only applicable when it comes to the furtherance of the religion. Ultimately, loyalty to the religion far outweighs any loyalty to God.

This is why, in the name of their god (Allah) Jihadists can militarise their children, demonise Jews and Christians as being decendants of "Pigs and Monkeys", even to the point where small infants recite poetry extolling the "Virtue" of being a Shahid (Martyr Bomb).

The New Testament scriptures do not justify rape, murder and lying. We do know, however, that false prophets, teachers and a number of Clergymen, who claimed to be the oracles of God taught/teach things which fly in the face of the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. David Berg being a prime example of this.

The idea of a cataclismic strike purifying the planet is nothing new, I seem to remember that the last planet-wide cataclism saw the survival of a handful of humans and few of the creatures alive at the time.

Where men are left to their own devices they only produce more evil and wickedness. History ancient and modern shows us this.

evanman wrote:

Islamic morals are humanistic, they are the invention of Mohamed and later Islamic theologians.

Huh? How on earth do you get to say that about Islam and not about your own religion, Christianity? All religions are the invention of men.

evanman wrote:

I seem to remember that the last planet-wide cataclism saw the survival of a handful of humans and few of the creatures alive at the time.

Which cataclysm are you referring to here? Please don't tell me you are referring to the mythological deluge.

evanman wrote:

Where men are left to their own devices they only produce more evil and wickedness. History ancient and modern shows us this.

I don't for one minute subscribe to this. I believe almost the opposite. Once we cleanse the earth of religion, then we might also cleanse the earth of "evil" (which I don't believe in anyway) and wickedness (whatever that is).

Thorwald wrote:

evanman wrote:
I seem to remember that the last planet-wide cataclism saw the survival of a handful of humans and few of the creatures alive at the time.

Which cataclysm are you referring to here? Please don't tell me you are referring to the mythological deluge.

So maybe they weren't the best at keeping history records compared to modern techniques. Though, I dare say they did a pretty good job. Perhaps they will dig up your journal on some buried harddisk and say, "Look at these interesting myths."

Thorwald wrote:

evanman wrote:
Where men are left to their own devices they only produce more evil and wickedness. History ancient and modern shows us this.

I don't for one minute subscribe to this. I believe almost the opposite. Once we cleanse the earth of religion, then we might also cleanse the earth of "evil" (which I don't believe in anyway) and wickedness (whatever that is).

Don't you know religion/belief has a place in the human? Religion may be for the simple man. How many of those are there on the planet? I myself doubt for long. Faith is lacking in my heart. Though I know that some are alive and live everyday because of belief. I may not be a man of faith. Though I dare not take away what gives another life. I'd have to ask: is your prejudice against religion the start of another? It sounds as if you are more prejudice than Evanman about Islam and Christianity. Have you had time to study scripture? Where is your soul? Can you see the depth and breadth of the universe? Can you count the stars? Can you see the future and the past? You say you believe. Do you fear belief? Do you hate it and disdain it as a weakness?

Am I just babbling?

Some think. Some believe. Some do both. Maybe yet others do something else - maybe they sleep.

Quote:

The idea of a cataclismic strike purifying the planet is nothing new, I seem to remember that the last planet-wide cataclism saw the survival of a handful of humans and few of the creatures alive at the time.

If you're referring to the Great Flood, there is evidence for catastrophic flooding throughout the world at the end of the last glacial period, 16,000 to 7,000 years ago. Whether or not the ark story is true, is another question. While there isn't scientific evidence that a Great Flood wiped out everyone on the planet except Noah and his descendants, there is evidence of a population bottleneck found in the mitochondrial DNA of males that dates back about 60,000. The major themes of the Flood story appear to be supported by scientific evidence, even if the details of the story can be questioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

Winter wrote:

Don't you know religion/belief has a place in the human? Religion may be for the simple man. How many of those are there on the planet? I myself doubt for long. Faith is lacking in my heart. Though I know that some are alive and live everyday because of belief. I may not be a man of faith. Though I dare not take away what gives another life. I'd have to ask: is your prejudice against religion the start of another? It sounds as if you are more prejudice than Evanman about Islam and Christianity. Have you had time to study scripture? Where is your soul? Can you see the depth and breadth of the universe? Can you count the stars? Can you see the future and the past? You say you believe. Do you fear belief? Do you hate it and disdain it as a weakness?

I am not sure I followed everything you wrote here. Let me start by saying that I never claimed to "believe"; far from it. I disdain any belief based on faith alone. I don't have "faith" and don't need it (I have science). Yes, scientists _can_ count the stars (they haven't finished yet, but they will). I can "see" my past and use science to predict a great deal about the probability of future events, but claim to be no prophet nor do I wish to be.

Yes. I, like anyone else born in TFI, studied scripture quite frequently (I assume you meant the Christian Bible?). I dare say that I still know the Bible better than most Christians. I have no need for that book, but I understand its historical significance (but would rather read Shakespeare, Nietzsche, etc).

Yes. I am very prejudiced against _any_ religion, not just yours. But, as Richard Dawkins said, "I did not insult you. I insulted God."

Thorwald wrote:

I am not sure I followed everything you wrote here. Let me start by saying that I never claimed to "believe"; far from it. I disdain any belief based on faith alone. I don't have "faith" and don't need it (I have science). Yes, scientists _can_ count the stars (they haven't finished yet, but they will). I can "see" my past and use science to predict a great deal about the probability of future events, but claim to be no prophet nor do I wish to be.

I will answer you with your own words:

Thorwald wrote:

I don't for one minute subscribe to this. I believe almost the opposite. Once we cleanse the earth of religion, then we might also cleanse the earth of "evil" (which I don't believe in anyway) and wickedness (whatever that is).

Believing is not merely a Christian or religious thing. Some people have strong faith. Their gut tells them so. Others are more like doubters that need to prove everything. There is place for everyone. You sound like you believe the scientists.

Thorwald wrote:

Yes. I, like anyone else born in TFI, studied scripture quite frequently (I assume you meant the Christian Bible?). I dare say that I still know the Bible better than most Christians. I have no need for that book, but I understand its historical significance (but would rather read Shakespeare, Nietzsche, etc).

No, I am not referring only to the Bible. One thing I find interesting is that Nietzsche went crazy. Whatever he had figured out, couldn't keep his mind together. Have you read some of Carl Jung's work?

Thorwald wrote:

Yes. I am very prejudiced against _any_ religion, not just yours. But, as Richard Dawkins said, "I did not insult you. I insulted God."

I don't really have a religion. I say this because I have no reason to be grouped together with people I do not know and cannot trust. Wouldn't you say that prejudice is folly?

winter wrote:

Others are more like doubters that need to prove everything.

We don't use derogatory words like "doubters" for those who require proof in the real world.

winter wrote:

You sound like you believe the scientists.

Nope. That is the beauty of science; you don't have to believe anyone (not even a great mind like Einstein's). I am free to go out a test and maybe disprove anything they say. I stand by what I wrote: I do not believe anything based on faith alone. I am constantly trying to purge myself from that archaic system we were brought up in. Give it a try, it is rather enlightening.

winter wrote:

One thing I find interesting is that Nietzsche went crazy.

So what?

winter wrote:

Wouldn't you say that prejudice is folly?

Not when properly applied.

Thorwald wrote:

winter wrote:
Others are more like doubters that need to prove everything.

We don't use derogatory words like "doubters" for those who require proof in the real world.

Why is doubt a derogatory word? Doubt is a tool. You should know that. Scientists use doubt all the time.

Thorwald wrote:

winter wrote:
You sound like you believe the scientists.

Nope. That is the beauty of science; you don't have to believe anyone (not even a great mind like Einstein's). I am free to go out a test and maybe disprove anything they say. I stand by what I wrote: I do not believe anything based on faith alone. I am constantly trying to purge myself from that archaic system we were brought up in. Give it a try, it is rather enlightening.

I know you don't have to. Though it just sounded like you do. You still keep saying that you believe. You say that you "do not believe anything based on faith alone." I don't really care about that actually. Though you seem to be quite sure of it. My point is that some people's life energies seem to source from belief. To destroy that seems to be to be cruel and inhumane. I was trying to show you that you too seem to believe. Are you sure you want to cleans the earth from belief?

Religion and science probably overlap somewhere. Why do I think this? Because they are both a major contributor to most people's belief system.

You are free to go out and prove the scientist have numbered the stars correctly or incorrectly. However, is it practically possible to do that? Do you have those kind of resources? I don't, and I don't want to propagate the ideas of other people which may be entirely incorrect. So I am not going to be an evangelist for some scientists.

I'd rather you not make assumptions about how I was "brought up." I shut up. It worked. It was rather enlightening. You know when you are calmly riding a bicycle straight along, if you begin to fall to one side, you need to make a slight turn or slight adjustment of balance to correct that fall and keep on riding. If you are over zealous, you will go to the other extreme and need futher drastic adjustments in the opposite direction. I hope you purge enough to be able to find your way.

Thorwald wrote:

winter wrote:
One thing I find interesting is that Nietzsche went crazy.

So what?

Well, it was just interesting for me to note that. It has been said that an intelligent person learns from others, and a wise person also learns from himself. Do you know what Darwin's life was like? When I read more about some of these people, I begin to wonder if I really should listen to their ideas. If I do, will I not begin to emulate them? Foreign minds are something to be cautious with.

Quote:

My point is that some people's life energies seem to source from belief. To destroy that seems to be to be cruel and inhumane. I was trying to show you that you too seem to believe. Are you sure you want to cleans the earth from belief?

I was thinking about this. And while, to be honest, i still have some personal belief in God, and while i think you are quite right to some degree when you say that (I know during my time in TF i used my beliefs as my crutch), on the flip side of the coin, in the name of religion, in the name of God, Allah, Jesus, etc, and in the name of so many beliefs in a higher powr, so many people have been hurt, tortured, martyred, assasinated, not to mention manipulated, ruined, and have committed suicide. Even suicides of young people who left TF. So i really think there are two sides to this. and i don't know which evil is greater. to have faith or not to have faith and not have that something to depend on (which may be a good thing and make people get off their asses and do more). While i would like to think i still have some belief in something greater than mankind, i think in most cases religion is some form of injustice.

Winter,

No offence, but I do not need or want your advice on life. I have been at this game (i.e. the "real world") for much longer than you.

winter wrote:

I'd rather you not make assumptions about how I was "brought up."

If you were brought up in TFI, then I know quite a lot about how you were brought up. However, I don't recall making any assumptions.

winter wrote:

Why is doubt a derogatory word? Doubt is a tool. You should know that. Scientists use doubt all the time.

Trying to weasel your way out of that one, are we? You may not have intended it, but it came across just like they used it in the cult. As for what scientists do and/or use: What are you basing this knowledge off of? Do you have any training in science? Since you just left TFI, I doubt that you have had very much of it.

I am also basing this assumption off of your own posts about science. Believe me, my friend, you are not understanding the scientific method very well. There is no belief necessary.

Thorwald wrote:

Winter,

No offence, but I do not need or want your advice on life. I have been at this game (i.e. the "real world") for much longer than you.

That's alright. What you said is not offensive. If you take it as advice, that is up to you. I'm wondering, are you arguing for yourself as a person? Or are you arguing your point?

Thorwald wrote:

If you were brought up in TFI, then I know quite a lot about how you were brought up. However, I don't recall making any assumptions.

I guess "that archaic system we were brought up in" does not refer to me then. How I was brought up was not really a problem. The problem was how I lived as an adult in TF. TF never stops bringing you up. The leaders bring you up into their retarded mindsets. This is the problem I had. But that's not really an issue. We are talking about morals and religion. Religion != TF. When I talk about religion, I am talking about way more than TF.

Thorwald wrote:

winter wrote:
Why is doubt a derogatory word? Doubt is a tool. You should know that. Scientists use doubt all the time.

Trying to weasel your way out of that one, are we? You may not have intended it, but it came across just like they used it in the cult. As for what scientists do and/or use: What are you basing this knowledge off of? Do you have any training in science? Since you just left TFI, I doubt that you have had very much of it.

If you want to play ego games, try someone else. If you need some text to explain about doubt versus faith in the personality, I will give reference.

Thorwald wrote:

I am also basing this assumption off of your own posts about science. Believe me, my friend, you are not understanding the scientific method very well. There is no belief necessary.

Ummm... of course, there is no need for belief in the scientific method. How you do you know I don't understand the scientific method? Are we talking about science? I thought we were talking about morals. Correct me if I am wrong. To me it sounds like you think science will solve all of mankind's problems. Is that your argument?

I was arguing that religion and morals has a place on this earth for good. I wanted to counter your statement:

Thorwald wrote:

Once we cleanse the earth of religion, then we might also cleanse the earth of "evil" (which I don't believe in anyway) and wickedness (whatever that is).

I wanted to ask questions to understand how you came to this conclusion. I wanted to weigh such a statement. I need proof. Since you said that this was a belief of yours, I didn't ask you to prove it. Because beliefs do not need proof. Correct? I just wanted to probe your mind to see what is the root of this idea. I am sorry if I was intrusive.

On the argument at hand: when all religion is gone, will there be no more murder? Isn't murder evil irrespective of religion?

BTW, I'm going by this definition of evil:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

Cookie wrote:

Quote:
My point is that some people's life energies seem to source from belief. To destroy that seems to be to be cruel and inhumane. I was trying to show you that you too seem to believe. Are you sure you want to cleans the earth from belief?

I was thinking about this. And while, to be honest, i still have some personal belief in God, and while i think you are quite right to some degree when you say that (I know during my time in TF i used my beliefs as my crutch), on the flip side of the coin, in the name of religion, in the name of God, Allah, Jesus, etc, and in the name of so many beliefs in a higher powr, so many people have been hurt, tortured, martyred, assasinated, not to mention manipulated, ruined, and have committed suicide. Even suicides of young people who left TF. So i really think there are two sides to this. and i don't know which evil is greater. to have faith or not to have faith and not have that something to depend on (which may be a good thing and make people get off their asses and do more). While i would like to think i still have some belief in something greater than mankind, i think in most cases religion is some form of injustice.

The same argument can be applied to governments. We coming from TF might be biased against religion as others are against government. Take anarchists for example. There is a need for objectivity. There are probably better solutions than cleansing the earth of religion just as there are better solutions to government than anarchism.

I want to make one thing very clear. I do not like religion in the sense of the organization. I am not arguing for the institutions. Many of those institutions are corrupt. That is why I started to use the word 'belief' in my argument. Perhaps any large group of people is difficult to govern and/or organize. Corruption sets in and the original meaning is lost in greed and delusion. Isn't similar in other institutions as well?

xFamily

Quick Links

My Account

able2know